Stokes v. Swing et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 7/23/2019. (BDG) Opinion mailed to Stokes.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
JEFFREY A. STOKES,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUSTIN SWING, JASON WILLIAMS,
TIM LOKEY, MARY WEST, JEREMY
BEECH, RONNIE WARREN, TYLER
POWELL, and TANYA EDWARDS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.: 4:17-CV-075-HSM-SKL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 21, 2019, the Court
entered an order providing that Plaintiff had thirty days from the date of entry of the order file an
amended complaint, which the Clerk sent to both addresses for Plaintiff listed in the complaint
[Doc. 5 p. 3]. The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with that order,
the Court would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the Court’s orders
[Id. at 4]. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with this order or
otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, this action
will be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) gives this Court the authority to dismiss a case for
“failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” See,
e.g., Nye Capital Appreciation Partners, L.L.C. v. Nemchik, 483 F. App’x 1, 9 (6th Cir. 2012);
Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362–63 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court examines four
factors when considering dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b):
(1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether
the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the
dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and
(4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was
ordered.
Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005); see Reg’l Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland
Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 155 (6th Cir. 1988).
As to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to or comply with
the Court’s previous order is due to Plaintiff’s willfulness and/or fault. Specifically, it appears that
Plaintiff received the Court’s order, but chose not to comply therewith. As such, the first factor
weighs in favor of dismissal.
As to the second factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
order has not prejudiced Defendants.
As to the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court would dismiss this case if
he failed to comply with the Court’s order [Id.].
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. Plaintiff was a prisoner whom the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this matter [Doc. 3] and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s most recent order, updated his
address, or otherwise communicated with the Court.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor
of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41(b). Further, the Court CERTIFIES that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
2
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._____
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?